DeKalb residents seek appeal of Electoral Board ruling on 5th Ward Alderman Scott McAdams’ candidacy

DeKALB – The DeKalb Electoral Board’s recent decision for Ward 5 Alderman Scott McAdams to remain on voters’ ballots in the April 4 consolidated election is now being challenged by the same residents who petitioned for McAdams’ removal.

Last month, the Electoral Board ruled in favor of McAdams to remain on the ballot, tossing out DeKalb residents Mark Charvat’s and Derek Van Buer’s objections to the sitting alderman’s reelection petition.

McAdams said he’s accepted the fact that the objectors have the right to appeal the voted regarding his reelection efforts for DeKalb City Council.

“The right to appeal a decision is a right enshrined in the law, and as such, that is just fine with me,” McAdams said. “I believe in the rule of law.”

The matter now heads to DeKalb County Circuit Court where Chief Judge Bradley Waller is expected to weigh in on the pending election challenge from Charvat and Van Buer, the latter of whom is running as a write-in candidate for a seat on the DeKalb City Council as 5th Ward alderman.

The case is expected to be heard at 9 a.m. Feb. 14 at the DeKalb County Courthouse in Sycamore.

In their court filing, the objectors argue that the panel never decided on two key issues of the case – whether McAdams turned in the clipboard as part of the binding at the time of filing, and whether the clipboard qualified as securely fastened. The duo argued that deliberations on the matter were halted when the DeKalb Public Library – where the hearing was being held – closed.

Attorney Anna Wilhelmi, who represents McAdams and is also leader of the DeKalb County Democratic Party, begged to differ, saying the panel was thorough in its review.

“They very much contemplated their ruling,” Wilhelmi said. “I didn’t see them rushed at all. Even though the library was closing, they were very matter of fact and actually discussed at length between the three of them the facts of the case and the law. I didn’t see them rushed at all.”

The objectors also allege that the decision of the panel was pre-written by board counsel prior to hearing any testimony or evidence presented.

Wilhelmi said she believes the matter is common attorney practice.

“There’s plenty of times where attorneys will do alternate orders depending on the outcome and have them prepared,” Wilhelmi said. “It wasn’t like right away, it was like in 10 minutes or whatever that he had it done. But it’s not unusual to have an order potentially prepared and have alternate ones depending on which way it’ll go.”